How is a Hate Crime by Muslims in New Jersey Like WMD in Iraq?

Neither of them exist, but right-wing nutbags believe every erroneous report that they do.

Via this shithead, I learned that there has been an arrest in the murder of the Egyptian Coptic Christian family in New Jersey.  You might recall that the right went crazy with accusations of Muslim terrorism when the murder story broke.  Well, here's the report:

The upstairs neighbor of an Egyptian Christian family found slain in their home in January was charged along with another man Friday in the killings, and authorities said the motive was robbery, not religious fanaticism, as some had feared. Edward McDonald, 25, who rented a second-floor apartment above Hossam Armanious and his family, pleaded not guilty to four counts of murder, as did Hamilton Sanchez, 30. Both men were ordered held on $10 million bail.

"I didn't kill nobody, man," Sanchez said as he was led from the courtroom.

Armanious, a 47-year-old Coptic Christian; his wife, and their two daughters, ages 8 and 15, were found bound and gagged with puncture wounds to their throats.

The slayings raised tensions between Christian and Muslim immigrants in New Jersey. Armanious frequented Internet chat rooms, posting opinions under the user name "I Love Jesus." Some Christians speculated he was killed by Muslim fanatics.

But Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio said the killings took place during a robbery by the two men, who owed someone a large sum of money. "I'd like to make one thing perfectly clear: The motive for these murders was robbery. This was a crime based on greed, the desperate need of money," DeFazio said.

So, apparently, no Muslim involvement at all.  But the idea that Muslims are killing Christians in America has now irretrievably spread through the righteous call to arms of the right-wing fuckwits.  So, I'd like to give a big Fuck You to Michelle Malkin (who posted a multi-part series entitled "HATE CRIME IN JERSEY CITY HEIGHTS"), Powerline, Adam Yoshida (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), Charles Bird, Junkyardblog, Silent Running, and more fringily (and scarily), American Jihad.  I intentionally ignored the literally dozens of other minor fascist twits who ran with the hate ball, because I want to make a clear point: The prominent right-wing bloggers, the so-called A- and B-list, including Time's "Blog of the Year", spread hateful lies constantly.  They should be called on it.  Sham apologies are insufficient.  These idiots should stay away from keyboards for the same reason drunks need to be steered away from bars: the results are never pretty, and innocent people may end up getting hurt.

Update: Some in comments, including Charles Bird, take exception to the "sham apologies" remark.  Perhaps instead I should have written "clueless and inadequate."  I am not slamming people for a simple mistake.  Bird & Co. jumped on this story because they're motivated by an ideology that holds that Muslims are dangerous.  To apologize for making a mistake in this case misses the point entirely, thereby making it a sham.  "Oops, I got it wrong this time" fails to recognize that the real failure is due to holding the "clash of civilizations" belief.  It also fails to take responsibility for being part of what Dave Neiwert calls the "transmission belt" of eliminationist rhetoric.  The people I cited do not need to apologize just for making an error - they need to apologize for holding bigoted beliefs and for helping to spread hatred in an already hatred-ridden culture, and to undertake seriously to change. 

You set the bar too low by accepting "Looks like I was wrong; sorry about that" for doing such a serious and dangerous thing.

Comments

[Cyn]

"under the user name 'I Love Jesus.'" Come on, is it really a hate crime if you kill someone for being a total tool?

[Mithras]

It's downgraded to involuntary twitslaughter.

[Riggsveda]

Although the apology on OW was decently done, what can't be undone is the further damage to the Mulsim community caused byt having such speculations raised in a public and well-trafficked place. In a time like this, when so many hate crimes are on the rise and the government is busy busy busy redirecting peoples' anger away from the Bush agenda and toward outlier enemies behind every tree, we all have a responsibility not to echo these kinds of groundless theories. People in the blogosphere like to think of themselves as citizen journalists. Well, a little journalistic ethics would go a long way to making that self-stylization ring true.

Nice work on the post, BTW. Nice blog, period.

[Riggsveda]

"Muslim" and "by".
A little keyboard dyslexia there.

[Tiny Tyrant]

Ah, this mob blows.

[redster]

Michelle Malkin is a joke. She also is a frequent poster at VDARE.COM, which is basically a site pandering to right-wing xenophobes. Little does she realize that these supremacists(or "paleocons" as they like to call them) would boot her ass right back to Manila if they had their way.

[John Gillnitz]

American fascism is a fad. It will soon pass. Like Rock 'n Roll and Hip-hop.

[Gandhi's Ghost]

"if you kill someone for being a total tool" - um, that is priceless. Are you trolling for abuse? That's not the sort of thing liberals do & think ... go back to LGF...we don't kill people just because they disagree with us, look different than us, or say...post inane things on chatrooms.

[Matt Davis]

It's also interesting because Egyptian Copts tend to be some heavy dope-smoking cats. It's funny to think of our own "Christians" worrying about whether Muslims were attacking a bunch of people who think marijuana is a sacrament.

[Geek, Esq.]

I think you may be a little harsh in your treatment of OW--he is doing the right thing now.

The goons and loons over at Late German Fascists, on the other hand, think it was still the evil Muslims.

Because the one guy was in prison.

And he talked to some Muslims there.

[Charles Bird]

If you think what I wrote was a "sham apology", Mithras, then I suggest the term "shithead" fits you much better than me, pal.

[Mike S.]

As an Egyptian Copt, I have something I'd like to add to this discussion. In Egypt, Moslems really do kill Copts. Churches have been firebombed, forced conversion marriages are common, and Copts are essentially banned from high positions in society. Copts really do worry about being killed for their religion.

When the murder happened, many Copts immediately assumed that the killing was related to Islamic fundamentalists for two reasons:

1. There is no evidence that they did not kill the family,

2. No money was taken and authorities indicated that that fact was suspicious in a robbery, and

3. Because Copts are still scared of being killed by Moslems even after they immigrate to the US.

This does not excuse the right wing bloggers, but I think they picked up on some of the fear and anger present in the Coptic community and used it to their own advantage.

As for Matt Davis' post, I do not know what he is talking about. Marijuana is not used in the Coptic church at all and the church strongly prohibits recreational drugs in general.

[Roxanne]

Just wow.

[Nads]

If you think what I wrote was a "sham apology", Mithras, then I suggest the term "shithead" fits you much better than me, pal.

Posted by: Charles Bird

given your appaling racism in the original story, you don't get to whine too loudly.

[ch2]

If you think what I wrote was a "sham apology", Mithras, then I suggest the term "shithead" fits you much better than me, pal.

Posted by: Charles Bird

Apologies are better than none, but without reparations or a change of behavior, they amount to little more than a bit of face reddening PR.

What are you going to do, to undo the damage you have done by slandering and promoting hate ?

[Phila]

You got to check out Powerline's response to this story. Hindrocket says "Thankfully--I guess--the killings were not religiously motivated."

Why the ambivalence, I wonder?

[Phila]

You got to check out Powerline's response to this story. Hindrocket says "Thankfully--I guess--the killings were not religiously motivated."

Why the ambivalence, I wonder?

[P O'Neill]

Add Taranto at Wall Street Journal online to the shithead list:

>>
If this does turn out to be a jihadist hate crime, it'll be interesting to see what the Council on American Islamic Relations has to say about it.
>>

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006169

[R.Porrofatto]

Jumping to conclusions based purely on their own salivating suspicions and irate persecution complex is SOP for the wingnuts. Ya think Malkin would have jumped all over a story about a murdered Muslim family in a similar fashion, or even have noted it in the first place?

After clicking on some of the rabid foam-at-the-mouth links provided in the post above all I can say is it's a wonder they didn't get anyone killed.

Especially love the posts and comments at this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005217.php

[Joel]

I must protest. You neglected one of the main shitheads pushing this story. One Robert Spencer of JihadWatch (who has a book coming out soon entitled "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"--it's published by Regenery naturally, expect to see LGF and Malkin flacking it soon). Anyway many of the above were basically following Spencer's lead. His final post on the New Jersey murders is truely one of the most pathetic things I've read in quite some time.

[Mercy and Love]

Just so we can be reminded of the monstrous people making up the right-wing in America, everyone should read every word of the LGF comments:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14934_Arrests_in_NJ_Murders#comments

Absolutely chilling.

[JakeV]

Whether these apologies are worth anything or not will be revealed by future behavior.

[QrazyQat]

Remember the hysteria after the Oklahoma City bombing, when loads of people, including much of the news, ran for days with the idea that it was Arabs we were looking for. I didn't remember the date of Waco myself (I don't have such things tatooed on my upper arm) but as soon as it was mentioned that it, just so coincidentally, was the same date, it was obvious that we should be looking for militia people. Well, obvious to me, but then I'm some sort of super-intelligent crimefighting wizard, like Batman. Apparently.

[Sean-Paul]

That was no "sham apology" as you so ungenerously put it. That was a real apology. And you should make a retraction. He doesn't qualify his remarks and apologized and retracted it all. For God sakes man, do you want him to grovel?

Look ,I am not a big fan of OW. Too often they shill Republican talking points and buy into the nationalistic garbage. But, this time they did the right thing. Sometimes, the corect thing to do is to forgive (I didn't say forget!)

Listen, I know a thing or two about apologies. And I've made my share of mistakes. And very few people gave me credit for apologizing. This guy was manly enough to do the right thing. You should give credit where credit is due.

As to the rest of 'em: right on. They are a bunch of right-wing fuck wits, as you put it. Great post. All of them are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

[loser]

I've never read 'obsidian wings', but objectively speaking, why is he/she a "shithead" and why is this a "sham apology"? They made some half-hearted insinuations, and made what looks like a sincere apology, which is not too common on the blogs. After all, this is who you apparently learned the real story from. Surely they deserve some distinction from the likes of pure slime like Malkin or the powerline jackasses.

[beingthere]

It's pretty disgusting how obviously disappointed they are to find out it wasn't Muslims after all. But hey, on to the next paranoia: Powerline are now blaming the intifadah on the French at the moment.

[Momma]

An apology means nothing if the behavior doesn't change. If my husband beats me and apologizes, and then beats me tomorrow, then what the hell is good about his apology.

Momma Says

[von]

Via this shithead, I learned that there has been an arrest in the murder of the Egyptian Coptic Christian family in New Jersey.

Charles is one of my co-bloggers on Obsidian Wings and he can (and has) defended himself. But I'd be remiss if I didn't add the following personal note:

With due respect, Mithras, what the fuck? All those "right-wing" posts didn't arise from nothing; there were a large number of seemingly credible reports that the crimes could have been religiously motivated. Charles didn't make this shit up. And, when more information came in, Charles revised himself -- and apologized. If only we could all be honorable.

[von]

Look ,I am not a big fan of OW. Too often they shill Republican talking points and buy into the nationalistic garbage.

Just a quick housekeeping note: There are six bloggers at OW (seven, if you count Katherine, who's on hiatus). Only four of us routinely "shill Republican talking points" and "buy into the nationalistic garbage." (That'd be Charles, Sebastian, Slartibartfast, and me.) The other spend their time "shilling French-socialist-weenie" talking points and "buying into UN-lovin'" garbage.

[Jadegold]

Jesus. These crimes could have been committed by alien invaders from another solar system. They could have been committed by methamphetamine-crazed dwarves from the circus.

The issue is the rightwingers, like those at LGF and OW, immediately leap on any story involving Muslims and crime and quickly jump to the usual conclusion: Mulims are evil. When they're proven wrong, these rightwing extremists say 'sorry, but we were just reporting what was being reported.'

OK, Von, where are you rightwingers when Christians like Dennis Rader get pulled in? Nowhere to be seen.

[Mithras]

Bird - you're clueless. Read the update.

von - On Bird Dig, read the update. On OW, generally, as you know, I think you all put up with too much bullshit from Holsclaw and BD without calling it bullshit. That's your problem, not mine. I think you're being willfully blind. I don't visit your comments and say it, as you all requested, but I sure as fuck am going to call you on it here on my own site. Don't like it? Don't read it.

Loser, Sean Paul, Geek Esq., read the update. If you still disagree, I'd like to hear why.

[Roxanne]

Did anyone "thank" the NYT for apologizing for getting the WMD story wrong? Did anyone "thank" them for apologizing for Jayson Blair's fake news?

I don't think the apologies are unfelt, but I also don't think the readers of these various sites need to turn the propaganda-spreaders/ now apologizers into heroes for doing what is minimally expected.

[jri]

"If you think what I wrote was a "sham apology", Mithras, then I suggest the term "shithead" fits you much better than me, pal.

Posted by: Charles Bird | March 5, 2005 12:29 PM"

Nuh uh.

[marky]

People like charles dirtbag birddog don't understand that the concept of apologizing is connected with the idea of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY---which is actually one of the favorite buzzwords of the right.
Birdbitch didn't simply get the facts wrong---in the absence of any evidence, he pilloried the Muslim community for this murder. Unless he actually changes his behavior in the future, and reassesses the beliefs that lead him to assess blame to Muslims for crimes, his apology is nearly worthless.

I will lay odds that his behavior won't change a whit, since I used to read his illogical, psychotic ramblings on other red-meat blogs.

Oh, by the way, let me preemptively apologize if I create any unwarranted feeling of offense on the wrong side of the aisle. I'm really sorry, guys.

[Michael]

Sure, there are always a large number of "credible" reports that Evil Muslims are out to get all us right-thinking people. Instantaneously. The question is, at what point do you start thinking, hey, maybe I should hold back from the bandwagon until there's, you know, some evidence besides the insane ravings of a Michelle Malkin?

Good for Charles that he apologized -- but the point is, the damage is done. It probably couldn't be undone anyway, because beside Charles, I'm sure nobody will apologize. Why would they? In their view, mere facts are unimportant unless they show the clarity of the underlying Truth. That this particular instance of evil run amok didn't actually correspond to reality is inconsequential.

Next time, be a little slower to assume the Evil Muslims are out to kill us all, and maybe term "shithead" will no longer apply, eh?

[Mithras]

Mike S. - I don't know that much about Egypt or the position of the Coptic Church there. And I think it would be understandable if you were a Copt, especially in urban NJ, to fear that the murders were religiously inspired. But it's a different story for people who aren't in your position. Just last year, we had a prominent right-wing commentator publish a book-length treatment on why Japanese and Japanese-American internment in World War II was a good idea. America has a big, bad xenophobic streak, and since 9/11 people like these bloggers have indulged in and exploited it. What they're doing lays the groundwork for public support for more extreme measures down the road. If they don't realize that's what they're contributing to, someone should point it out, loudly and rudely.

I am not in this to make friends. I am in this because someone has to push back hard enough to make these people reconsider the entire direction they're moving in. Other people, who like to tapdance down the middle of the road and call themselves moderates, are just going to get shoved out of the way after the next incident by the people they're straining now not to offend.

And get this: I do believe there will be another attack someday. And then how will these people react? With restraint? Or will they feel that their prior paranoia was justified and maybe even inadequate?

We've fallen a long way in 3 and a half years. I don't want us to fall any further.

[Charles Bird]

given your appaling racism in the original story, you don't get to whine too loudly.

There was no racism there, Nads. Racism was never an issue.

What are you going to do, to undo the damage you have done by slandering and promoting hate?

I just wrote a post to correct the record, ch2, and I take issue that I slandered anyone or promoted hate. By the way, my original posts contained qualifying statements, and on several occasions I noted that the authorities had not ruled in or ruled out the motives for the murders. There did happen to be circumstantial information in mainstream press reports which raised the issue of a Muslim-on-Christian hate crime, including the opinions of a professor of forensic psychology and a former FBI profiler based on the information available. When new facts came forth yesterday, I responded on the front page within hours of the arrests.

[Mithras]

When new facts came forth yesterday, I responded on the front page within hours of the arrests.

What do you want, a cookie?

[Rob]

Thanks for the good news. I prefer greed to fanaticism. It is frightening how quickly people jump on the bandwagon without a trace of doubt: There's no witholding judgment until the facts are in; the jury's never out.

[Charles Bird]

Bird & Co. jumped on this story because they're motivated by an ideology that holds that Muslims are dangerous.

That's your response, Mithras? Mindreading as to what you feel my motivations are? And I'm the one's who clueless? What a clueless and inadequate update. As I've written here and here and here and in numerous other places, the issue for me has never been that "Muslims are dangerous". My themes on the root causes of terrorism touch on the lack of freedom and democracy in the Muslim-majority world and the extremist ideologies that have gained footholds there and in other places of the world. Your update is a blatant--and dare I say bigoted--distortion of my views and my writings.

[dak]

There did happen to be circumstantial information in mainstream press reports which raised the issue of a Muslim-on-Christian hate crime, including the opinions of a professor of forensic psychology and a former FBI profiler based on the information available.

What happens to the right-wing's skepticism of the "MSM" when the reports agree with their worldview? See, you're still ignoring Mithras's point. It isn't that you were wrong. Anyone can screw up. Everyone does. It's why you were wrong, and you're still defending the root cause of your mistake.

Had it been a Muslim killed and reports were out and about that it may been a Christian fundamentalist, would you have written the same sort of fiction you wrote in this case? I doubt it. Come to think of it, I doubt you'd even cover that story, or, if you did, you'd be more careful, more respectful, and more skeptical. If you wrote it, the story wouldn't be about Christian eliminationists killing Muslims as part of a crusade (with "qualified statements"--Jesus H. Christ on a Pogo Stick, that's the lamest damn excuse I've ever heard), it'd be about Christians being villified by the "MSM".

[dak]

As I've written here and here and here and in numerous other places, the issue for me has never been that "Muslims are dangerous". My themes on the root causes of terrorism touch on the lack of freedom and democracy in the Muslim-majority world and the extremist ideologies that have gained footholds there and in other places of the world.

You see, everyone, it's not bigotry that fuels Charles, it's just the fact Muslims are a backwards people motivated by religious extremism and hatred of our freedom.

[Mithras]

You're right, BD. I am bigoted against stupid people.

You jumped the gun on this story because you wanted to believe it was true. Turns out to be wrong and you don't want to examine your beliefs. I called you on it. End of story.

[bitchphd]

There was no racism there, Nads. Racism was never an issue.

I believe this sort of proves Mithras's point that the apology is half-assed. Let's look at what Bird says in the original post:

He paid for those beliefs in full
Um, no, he didn't. His beliefs had nothing to do with the robbery. The original post wasn't just reporting speculation: it was taking a stand on that speculation.

A very troubling story if true, and I'm sure there's more than meets the eye. There may have been insurmountable cultural tension between native Egyptians with fundamental religious differences, not to mention some personal animosity towards Mr. Armanious. But just like with Theo van Gogh, it doesn't excuse murder or that Armanious had it coming. I won't go as far as Spencer in calling it "America's Theo van Gogh murder", but I do agree that this act is an "indication that all Muslims in the nation do not, as we are supposed to believe, unanimously accept the parameters of American pluralism. That at least some are willing to enforce Sharia penalties right here, right now."

Again: "I'm sure there's more to this than meets the eye"--inflammatory, much? Especially followed by agreeing, with no evidence, that the murder--"this act," which, it is clearly implied, means religiously-motivated murder--"is an indication that" etc. That is inflammatory, it is clearly using a murder that had nothing to do with religion as "evidence" for distrusting Muslims, and the update that follows onto the post in question pretty much does the same: I used a question mark, Charles says, so that covers my ass for using this case to advance an argument about Islamic fundamentalism (an argument that's pursued in the update, even.)

So, um, yes. That is racist. And I'm not going to apologize for pointing that out.

[Marky]

hmmmm.. I like this Mithras guy. He's one of the new Howard Dean, Harry Reid type of Dems---ballsy, articulate and RIGHT.
I'll be back to visit again.

[Harmon Kilogram]

If you don't like being called a shithead, Bird, then quit acting like one. You shithead.

[Edward]

Do me a favor, please, Mithras: don't post trackbacks to stories on our blog if you're gonna violate our posting rules in doing so.

I managed to argue with Charles (Bird Dog) about his original post without resorting to name calling, and I managed to recognize a genuine act of contrition as something to be praised when he apologized. I can understand where Charles' original post pissed you off, but to use his retraction to beat him up over it suggests you care more about winning points than being actually caring what effect jumping to conclusions can have for minority groups.

[marky]

Edward, your post is rich.
I don't see Charles caring about how his racist posts effect minority groups.
He only cares, in the narrowest sense, that he got a fact wrong.

[Realist]

Surely they deserve some distinction from the likes of pure slime like Malkin or the powerline jackassesWhy? They're on the same side, aren't they?

[Edward]

He only cares, in the narrowest sense, that he got a fact wrong.

That could replace the "glass is half empty" analogy as a test for optimism/pessimism, though, marky. Why not consider Charles' post as genuine contrition. You know, the kind that leads to communication and wider understanding among persons on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Isn't it better that we NOT gang up on someone when they admit an error, as a means of encouraging them to do so more often?